IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22653 of 2014 BETWEEN B. Malleswaramma and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE – R1 to R3 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners question the notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No.Rc.E/483/2013 dated 08.07.2014 proposing to conduct enquiry on the petition filed by the fourth respondent for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds said to have been issued to the petitioners for an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land in Dowlathapuram village, Chippagiri Mandal, Kurnool District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners questions initiation of the said proceedings by the fourth respondent on the ground that the pattadar pass books were issued to the petitioners almost 15 years ago and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in view of the agreement of sale executed in their favour by the fourth respondent on 03.07.1978 whereunder the petitioners claim to have paid the full consideration. Learned counsel also sates that the petitioners have already filed O.S.Nos.29 and 43 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alur, for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction respectively in respect of Ac.5.00 cents of land, which is the subject matter of the present impugned notice.
3. Even assuming that the contentions of the petitioners are factually correct and even if such suits are pending, I do not see any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Revenue Divisional Officer in entertaining the petition filed by the fourth respondent and no malafides are also alleged. Hence, the enquiry proposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer does not deserve to be interdicted at the threshold when only a notice is given to the petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to submit their objections and raise all their contentions in response to the said notice and the objections of the petitioners shall be considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer while considering the said petition of the fourth respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 8, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in one week.
(B/o)DSK